The five minute round isn't exactly conducive to fights in formation either.
On the average public server, you'll probably spend two to three minutes establishing dominance over the idiots who think they know better. Yelling at people to get into formation will take another minute or two, and by the time the formations clash you have ten seconds left to decide the outcome.
That is, if they don't ignore you out of spite and just hurl themselves headlong at the enemy.
Thank you for writing this. Its very informative, and the pictures are great. One question: Is there a formation you would recommend for attacking? Like in a siege? Testudo, perhaps?
Thank you for writing this. Its very informative, and the pictures are great. One question: Is there a formation you would recommend for attacking? Like in a siege? Testudo, perhaps?
Thanks Temuzu I think for siege warfare, for the attackers at least, formations would be problematic at best once you got to the castle, ladders and that sort of thing tend to hamper the effectiveness of any kind of cohesive group. Though certainly for approaching a testudo (or probably a more loose model) would be doable I think, just bunching everyone up in shields would work I'd think, those without shields (archers) could be moved to the center/rear. For passageways and that sort of thing the best would probably be a mob of sword and boarders I think, though I don't have much experience with siege to be honest. For the courtyard I don't see why a line formation couldn't be used though.
I'll probably do a bit more tomorrow on this, gotta sleep now though
I like teamplay and I like this but I am having only two problems with everything you wrote(maybe I should read the PDF too, I'll do that when I have some time )
The leader is positioned in the middle leading the whole formation and wears distinctive clothing.
As a result he is often the first one to be engaged in a battle by the enemy and once the enemy marksmen have recognized him, they will target him as they know he is the leader. It would be alot better if that leader picked equipment similar to that of his men and, supposing he is a good fighter aswell, that leader should stay in a spot where he is most needed or behind the formation so that he can always see what is happening infront of him, what his formation is doing(wrong) and any other threats that need to be countered.
What happens if the commander dies? Do his troops know what to do without them? Do you have a replacement or will we allow the commander to keep directing his troops when he is dead over TS/Vent/whatever? Thats an important question that needs to be answerred.
Secondly, a large formation is best broken up into two that cooperate(its hard in WB, I know), so that you can envelop your opponent or avoid envelopment yourself. Maybe you should have a main infantrycomponent for head on combat and an archerdetachment for envelopment/support. Although it might get complicated when you have several commanders within a(for this game) complex hierarchy.
And it depends a bit on the situation to I suppose.
It's very hard to get people to move in a line, even with the benefit of voice chat, as has been demonstrated during the formation sunday battles. However, after some thought, I've come up with a rule of thumb that may help. I'm going to call it 'The Left Hand Man Rule'.
The idea is that every player tries to keep level and next to the man on his left. When people are moving in formation they generall encounter difficulties because they don't know exactly where they ought to be. Each tries to guess, and it ends up in confusion. If every person only has to worry about the man on their left, then it makes everything a lot more clear-cut.
As such, the formation commander should not take the centre position, but the leftmost position. From there, he can move the formation at whatever speed is needed, and even turn it (Wheeling) if the person to his right is paying attention.
Very interesting and all, but I seriously doubt it's really applicable to Warband gameplay. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Basically, a poorly organized formation is far less effective than a fully disorganized mob, and will lose every time unless they break up and fight as a mob themselves. I'm not convinced it's even possible for the formation to win, but if it is, it'll only be through an insane amount of drilling and practice. So... yeah. Good luck with that.
It sounds and looks so nice, and the presentation is absolutely superb.
Unfortunately, I don't believe it's even possible for anyone aside from a hardcore drilling clan. In pubs, it's a bleeding miracle if you can even get people to stand in a line. And I mean even if they really do want to and are trying - not taking into consideration all the people that are invariably like "NO U fagzorz".
I mean, any formation absolutely falls apart in the heat of a normal battle, and not necessarily because of Hastings/Rambo syndrome. It's just that the chaos is too much for a formation to effectively respond to as a unit, unless you've got real-time response and real-time awareness, or are drilled enough with your formation-mates to get used to and compensate for any lag and/or mistakes.
What generally happens:
Assume that, miracle of miracles, you got people to form a rough line, and PRAISE TO ALLAH/GOD/JESUS/FSM, you're even moving more or less in said line. But then, some archers start firing on you from the left-frontside. A couple of the guys on the left side turn to block in that direction (have to, or they'll die). One guy on the right side turns in that direction too, because he caught a stray arrow on his shield. An archer on the right side picks the guy on the right that just turned off, and a couple of people on the right turn that direction in a state of "oh ****, one of us died". Now an enemy inf charges the formation head-on, and everyone turns toward him. A couple of cav lance a couple of you in the back, because nobody heard them coming. Oops. A couple turn around completely now, in fear of more cav. A few others try to fight the one enemy inf, and a couple of friendly-fire incidents occur, killing one of you off. The enemy inf backpedals. The archers pick off a few more of you while you're dealing with that one inf and whirly-gigging around looking for cav. Meanwhile, 3 more enemy inf are moving in from the side... you can see how it all falls apart. It's just impossible to have the kind of awareness and reponsiveness you need, even if everyone is really trying to stick in formation (a big if, as many have noted already), unless you're a clan, with vent/TS/whatever, and a highly-drilled one at that.
That said, I remember one of my first memories of MP was running around like a chicken, as usual, and coming upon three fully-armored Hoboknights with spears and shields, all in a line. They killed my face off, and looked cool doing it.
In pubs, it's a bleeding miracle if you can even get people to stand in a line. And I mean even if they really do want to and are trying - not taking into consideration all the people that are invariably like "NO U fagzorz".
You see, this is why we need voice chat in game. Either for a squad leader to be able to speak, or just a positional voice system, so you can coordinate your group more.
Great diagrams and explanation. Did you draw those guys yourself?
I honestly would love to see more organized gameplay happen, but the only way it will occur is if people log in, see formations happening, AND see them winning. No matter what we write, you will have to go in and SHOW people that they work, and it is hard.
Crypto perfectly describes what happens to the best intentioned players when in a team server trying to stay in formation.
But, maybe we need to not give up on it. I would like to know if it can be done better and I like the thought exercise this entails.
First, I would like to propose a slight different definition of what a formation is. Rather then a formation like line or column, I would say it is a loose collection of players whos STRIKING RANGE is overlapping. This means that a formation of pikes would be farther apart then swords, for example.
That I think is the key to work with. The only in game advantage to being close to one another is being able to reach out and touch someone at the same time.
When you have a number advantage in m&b there are two ways to kill a person with just melee. The first way is to expose their back and hit them there. The second way is to both strike at the same time in different directions, OR, for one person to strike when the foe swings at your friend. Therefore, I think all formations should essentially try their best to create one or many of these situations when attacking.
In terms of defense, in m&b, you have 3 ways of stopping an attack. A shield block, a manual weapon block, and movement. Due to the large ponderous nature of a formation ( as ljf said, leader must move slower), movement is sacrificed as a defensive measure. From here, the only increased defense comes from shields and blocking. Manual blocks are ONLY good for melee hits, so a side of the formation that has no shields is now vulnerable to missile fire.
So if we look at being in formation (or in each others strike range), we see that the defensive options are limited, and offensive options are increased. Therefore, an effective formation is one that is very aggressive.
If I go back to what crypto said, I think one of the main things that must be learned in a formation is trust. If my extensive knowledge of formations I have from watching accurate history portrayals like 300 and braveheart is correct (ha haaa) a big part of formation fighting is trust in the man to your left/right. There has to be an understand throughout the formation for people to be able to say "That's not my job" and ignore threats.
A light example of what I mean by this would be one time fighting in snowy village as a rhodok vs khergits. We were on the village side, and decided to camp out behind that one building near the end of the map. It was not a formation per say, but I had decided to use a pike and take care of horses. In the first few rounds, I would dehorse someone, then turn to stab him as he slid on the ground, only to be hit by an arrow or another lancer coming in. I also realized that as soon as a horse hit the ground, half the team was closing on him. Therefore, the next couple of rounds, what I would do is simply unhorse the one guy, and stay ready for the next. Without a backwards look I'd take one guy off the horse, then the next, then the next, and sure enough their names popped up in the kill spam. If I had turned at any given point to address the threat I had created to my back from the unmounted rider, I would have been ridden down by the front. I had to trust that the guys behind me were taking care of the sliding khergits.
A good formation will need to understand this and have delegation, and someone you can trust to get the job done (ie skilled enough in the role ). This is not achievable in random pub groups.
Still, given this understanding and discipline to keep positions, in m&b envelopment is overwhelmingly powerful. So again looking at crypto's situation, even if these players know to stay in formation, and trust the guy on the left to keep the bolts off him, if your formation is surrounded, there is ALWAYS an angle for a bolt to slip through.
Therefore, a successful formation must play like a player. The formation itself must use angles and cover and position to keep itself from attack the same way a player would. An example of this is on field by the river, if you start on the side by the small bridge. Rather then moving the formation straight across the field to the fallen log which is poor cover, the formation should most likely move to the right down the road where the slope is steep enough that there is protection from archer fire. The same principles still apply in the group as it is solo, so the leader must be mindful of angles and flankers such that he will not move it into a position where they are taking archer fire from two sides.
Hrm, one other thing. This is probably poor evidence but potentially worth investigating. Ever read ender's game? I think the journey in that novel is more about adaptation rather then the specific techniques, but it makes a certain logical sense. Spoilered just in case you wanted to read the book, no major spoiler, just the general course of the first half of the book here:
In the book there are war games between squads and typically they play out such that everyone worked very hard to stay in a large formation, hold the line, be very precise and drilled. The team that could do the formations the best way with the most precise execution would win. Ender comes in and changes the game and broke his large formation down into small squads.
The idea is that the mass formation was a bullet magnet. He created small squads that emphasized personal skill and creativity. Instead of managing a whole formation, each squad would operate independently with a set goal to achieve. How they got there was up to them. This way there was an overall plan, each squad playing its part, but the micromanagement was up to each squad. This way they could evaluate their given situation, and proceed with the mission in the best way possible, in such a way that the squad leader could determine.
So really what I think the best 'formation' possible in m&b would consist of multiple squads of no more then 3 or 4 players, and even then maybe just squads of 2 depending on how many people you have to work with. But if I had a group of 10, I think working as a 3 x 3 x 4 set up rather then a mass of 10 would be outstanding. Further, if those squads always played together, and spent all their free time working along side each other in the chosen gear set up, AND the other squads played with each other, over time you really start to see something amazing come out of it.
If I didn't have to do more work right now, I'd grab a paper and start sketching ideas.
But yeah, I think crypto's description is the classic problem that needs to be solved for 'formations' to work. How does the formation defeat the swarm of chaos? That is the key to achieving formation play.
What we really need is experience, I think. Theorising is all well and good, but we need groups to practise together and try these ideas out. Then we can get a better idea of what works and what doesn't.
Right that is the heart of it right there, you need enough dedicated players to sit there all weekend and try one idea, keep refining it, see if they can get results. Then next weekend try another formation type, eventually some real results will come into play, including how other people react to formations and whether they can still win once the other team knows what you are doing.
At the end of the day it comes down to skill as usual, but I guess the real test is to see if superior positioning can beat highly caffeinated players
Indeed, I think you found an excellent point, that one can only sustain and effectively utilize a formation when the team is composed of players who are used to working together and have extensively practiced fighting in various formations.
Amongst the Euro clans I have noticed there is a great effort to improve the ability of fighting as a team and thus working to improve the formations employed.
Yet, even for such groups it requires much work and communication to achieve.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
